linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FE97E31.3010201@parallels.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:17:37 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC:	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, <devel@...nvz.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] memcg: kmem controller infrastructure

On 06/26/2012 01:12 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> index 83e7ba9..22479eb 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>   #define _LINUX_MEMCONTROL_H
>>   #include <linux/cgroup.h>
>>   #include <linux/vm_event_item.h>
>> +#include <linux/hardirq.h>
>>
>>   struct mem_cgroup;
>>   struct page_cgroup;
>> @@ -409,6 +410,12 @@ struct sock;
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM
>>   void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk);
>>   void sock_release_memcg(struct sock *sk);
>> +
>> +#define mem_cgroup_kmem_on 1
>> +bool __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(gfp_t gfp, void *handle, int order);
>> +void __mem_cgroup_commit_kmem_page(struct page *page, void *handle, int order);
>> +void __mem_cgroup_free_kmem_page(struct page *page, int order);
>> +#define is_kmem_tracked_alloc (gfp & __GFP_KMEMCG)
>>   #else
>>   static inline void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
>>   {
>> @@ -416,6 +423,43 @@ static inline void sock_update_memcg(struct sock *sk)
>>   static inline void sock_release_memcg(struct sock *sk)
>>   {
>>   }
>> +
>> +#define mem_cgroup_kmem_on 0
>> +#define __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(a, b, c) false
>> +#define __mem_cgroup_free_kmem_page(a,b )
>> +#define __mem_cgroup_commit_kmem_page(a, b, c)
>> +#define is_kmem_tracked_alloc (false)
>>   #endif /* CONFIG_CGROUP_MEM_RES_CTLR_KMEM */
>> +
>> +static __always_inline
>> +bool mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page(gfp_t gfp, void *handle, int order)
>> +{
>> +	if (!mem_cgroup_kmem_on)
>> +		return true;
>> +	if (!is_kmem_tracked_alloc)
>> +		return true;
>> +	if (!current->mm)
>> +		return true;
>> +	if (in_interrupt())
>> +		return true;
>
> You can't test for current->mm in irq context, so you need to check for
> in_interrupt() first.
 >
Right, thanks.

> Also, what prevents __mem_cgroup_new_kmem_page()
> from being called for a kthread that has called use_mm() before
> unuse_mm()?

Nothing, but I also don't see how to prevent that.
At a first glance, it seems fair to me to say that if a kernel thread 
uses the mm of a process, it poses as this process for any accounting 
purpose.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/